— Capitalism... in and of itself is not the
reason for so many recurring social problems.
(Capitalism deserves its day in court without being subjected to a Judge, Jury, Public and Media whose knowledge of the facts frequently is found to be limited, based on hearsay, or represent an amalgamation of definitions in order to support a premeditated conclusion for self-serving reasons.)
— Capitalism is a tool.
(It is an inanimate entity that is animated into the image of a despicable character by those who seek a blood-letting but are afraid to point a finger at the actual perpetrator(s) of Social problems.)
— All would-be social reformers have tripped
over an expressed bullyism by beating up on Capitalism without understanding its
chameleon-like presence in other economic systems and vice versa.
(When in fact it is quite innocent but is condemned without a trial by those claiming it is guilty based on the perspective of a mob mentality that serves its brand of justice due to a verdict derived from a "guilty by association" review. Typically, people themselves are not denoted as being either a Good Capitalist, Bad Capitalist, or both... depending on circumstances and who is watching.)
It must be recognized that many of those in business use the present (exploitatious) form of Capitalism because that is the dominant rule they must abide by in order to attempt to make a living. They would gladly substitute it for a model of business that is more favorable to the whole of society if they were not forced to swim in the waters of a business environment where snakes, alligators, crocodiles, mosquitos, piranha, sharks, jelly fish, and numerous other types of predators exist... and are enabled by business ethics, government policies and religious (participation) deferments to inhabit fresh or salt water social conditions. (Various religions practice the same type of Capitalism such as being subsidized through tax exemptions.)
Capitalism is used by those who either want to use a blanketing approach for all of business, or a selective means for directing their philosophical assaults. In either case, they often do not point a finger at anyone or thing with intensified specificity that would bring about social reform if the respective actions of the assumed perpetrators was stopped. For example, let us say that a company such as General Motors, Ford, or a pharmaceutical company are pointed out as "Capitalists", and if we could get them to stop their activity, there would be some massive improvement in social conditions. Clearly, such thinking is embarrassingly naive. And so is those who think that by stopping all forms of assumed "Capitalism", we could achieve some grand remake of society so that some assumed marvelous age of social enlightenment would occur. This is absolutely irrefutable nonsense.
Not everyone who engages in the present practice of Capitalism are bad people. When there are lots of individual shop owners who are simply trying to make a living by working for themselves, they can not be accused of creating the business environment they are forced to work in. It is necessary for a person to walk the walk, talk the talk, and hock the hock of goods according to the rules of business that they are subjected to. While some shop owners may well "fudge the numbers" on their tax forms, so do many individuals for one reason or another. Even though humanity's ancestors left the jungle and walked onto the Savannah long ago, there remain those who recreate the conditions of the jungle no matter where they go. Whereas you can take all the apes out of the jungle, you can't take the jungle out of all the apes.
Capitalism is a tool, is an outline, is a suggestion of application to carry out a system of bartering. Unfortunately, it is used by some as a weapon, a blueprint, or a religious text. Whereas we can note that Capitalism is defined as an economic system based on private ownership; that which we view as representing this definition is the product of our own imagination. "Private ownership" is not a system. The "system" is that which is used to acquire something to be privately owned. It is not "private ownership", in and of itself that creates social problems, but the system that is used and the allowances made for defining what is private and what can be owned.
What we define as being "privately owned" frequently turns out to be "ownership based on a long-term lease". Take for example one's home, car, or land. These so-called "privately owned" items are attached to a (local, state or federal) government lease dependent on tax payments. As has been noted by many who bought their homes in the distant past for a few thousand dollars, they come to realize that their property was "owned" according to what may be called a protectionist racket carried out by the government who threatens to confiscate your property if taxes aren't paid... again and again and again, so much so that the price of one's home may have paid twice or more over the original cost. Hence, the "ownership" value is an illusion... just as is the practice of democracy.
If you purchase a personal vehicle through a bank, the bank's loan must be paid off or you will lose "your" assumed car. Yet, even after its original cost has been paid, you will have to pay annual taxes concealed in the garment of registration fees, and may also have to pay for still other taxes clothed in the garments of safety and emissions inspections... not to mention the taxes one has to pay for using fuel, repairs, and dispersal of old tires replaced with new ones. In short, your so-called "private ownership" actually is a "public ownership" because you regularly have to pay taxes to an entity that is described as a "peoples government", even though the public has little say so in how "their" government is run.
In some circumstances, even one's so-called "private" thoughts are publicly owned, when viewed from the perspective that many people are indoctrinated by a public education system that teaches them to think in a given way, with a given language, about given subjects. In fact, "advancing" to higher degree of learning requires that you learn a certain body of knowledge in a certain way under certain conditions before you can be recognized as an advanced thinker with private thoughts that many others think about in the same way and think that their minds are privately owned!... because this is how they have been taught to think about privately owned thoughts in support of their government, religion, business, etc... Such is how naive most of us are.
This naivete' harkens back to an age when it was thought that in knowing someone's "private" name, they could thus be "owned" by someone else. This perspective is illustrated in the old fairy tale of Rumplestiltskin and is similar to the idea in which primitive peoples felt that a photograph of them indicated that their soul had been captured. In the tale about Rumplestiltskin, there are various forms of "ownership" and the idea of being paid for one's labor. Rumplestiltskin thinks he "owns" his name and can thus use it as a rigged system of bartering. The woman in the tale thinks she has a right to the "ownership" of the baby, and wants the former deal to be called off. In the following version of the tale there is someone who overhears his name and acts as a "business partner" to the woman whom she assists by telling her what she heard, though we might not consider her knowledge to have been obtained by stealth or corporate espionage... if only because the woman and her assistant weren't defined as being in a business relationship... though in a sense, a business transaction was undertaken and no doubt the messenger may have been duly compensated later on.
German fairy tale collected by the Brothers Grimm for their Grimm's Fairy Tales (1812–22). Other variations occur in European folklore; in some British versions the title character is named Terrytop, Tom Tit Tot, or Whuppity Stoorie.
The title character is a mysterious gnome-like man who spins straw into gold for the benefit of a beautiful miller's daughter, in exchange for her future first-born child. The little man reappears to demand his payment when the young woman, now the queen, bears her first child. After she begs him to release her from her thoughtless vow, he allows her three days in which to discover his name. If she cannot, he will take the child. All seems lost until someone overhears his premature celebration of his good fortune and gives the queen the information she needs to keep her child.
Source: "Rumplestiltskin." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Note: it is of value to point out the "3" reference in this tale since it is a frequent recurrence in many subject areas (such as economics, sociology, political science, psychology, etc...) and is readily seen in fairy tales; but those who have studied children's literature with respect to fairy tales, (and those interested in other subjects) have all too often come up with the wrong, or an insufficient reason as to why this phenomena occurs... and has a bearing on our lives even if it is dismissed as being irrelevant or disparaged by being called numerology. For those interested, it may be of value for you to investigate: Threesology Research Journal.
When we look at the description of Capitalism as an economic system based on the private ownership of Capital (taken from the wordweb dictionary); this may be interpreted by some readers as too simplistic and thus exhibits an inaccuracy. Instead, you might be one who prefers an elaboration as that found in the following brief Britannica article:
Capitalism (also called free market economy, or free enterprise economy)
(is an) economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.
Although the continuous development of capitalism as a system dates only from the 16th century, antecedents of capitalist institutions existed in the ancient world, and flourishing pockets of capitalism were present during the later European Middle Ages. The development of capitalism was spearheaded by the growth of the English cloth industry during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. The feature of this development that distinguished capitalism from previous systems was the use of the excess of production over consumption to enlarge productive capacity rather than to invest in economically unproductive enterprises, such as pyramids and cathedrals. This characteristic was encouraged by several historical events.
In the ethic encouraged by the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, traditional disdain for acquisitive effort was diminished, while hard work and frugality were given a stronger religious sanction. Economic inequality was justified on the grounds that the wealthy were also the virtuous.
Another contributing factor was the increase in Europe's supply of precious metals and the resulting inflation in prices. Wages did not rise as fast as prices in this period, and the main beneficiaries of the inflation were the capitalists. The early capitalists (1500–1750) also enjoyed the benefits of the rise of strong national states during the mercantilist era. The policies of national power followed by these states succeeded in providing the basic social conditions, such as uniform monetary systems and legal codes, necessary for economic development and eventually made possible the shift from public to private initiative.
Beginning in the 18th century in England, the focus of capitalist development shifted from commerce to industry. The steady capital accumulation of the preceding centuries was invested in the practical application of technical knowledge during the Industrial Revolution. The ideology of classical capitalism was expressed in Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), which recommended leaving economic decisions to the free play of self-regulating market forces. After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars had swept the remnants of feudalism into oblivion, Smith's policies were increasingly put into practice. The policies of 19th-century political liberalism included free trade, sound money (the gold standard), balanced budgets, and minimum levels of poor relief.
World War I marked a turning point in the development of capitalism. After the war, international markets shrank, the gold standard was abandoned in favour of managed national currencies, banking hegemony passed from Europe to the United States, and trade barriers multiplied. The Great Depression of the 1930s brought the policy of laissez-faire (noninterference by the state in economic matters) to an end in most countries and for a time cast doubt on the capitalist system as a whole. The performance of capitalism since World War II in the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany, and Japan, however, has given evidence of its continued vitality.
Source: "Capitalism." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
(Let us not overlook that the word "vitality" is misleading, and describes the writer's perspective concerning Capitalism. "Vitality" can be equated with the words cancer, epidemic, mob mentality, etc... Even if everyone in an insane asylum have all their basic needs supplied for them by those who likewise are insane, then there might not be anyone who would claim that the "system" is bad. But if basic needs are sustained long enough for higher needs to develop, the maturity of such may lead the person(s) out of their insanity into a perspective of sobriety that more easily recognizes the practiced system as a collaborated insanity. The present form of Capitalism remains a "viability" because it is widely supported by those whose brand of insanity are permitted to prosper by being indulged in— due to government and religious attitudes. The practice of the present king of Capitalism would not be viable if it weren't given a safe and nurturing social environment supported by both the government and religion and fellow business practitioners whose individual and collective environments encourage such a perspective to prosper.
In the foregoing article it states capitalism is distinguished from previous systems because it is:
|"the excess of production over consumption to enlarge productive capacity rather than to invest in economically unproductive enterprises, such as pyramids and cathedrals."|
While some readers would want to argue that "Capitalism" in a strict sense refers to "Capital" (that, for the sake of brevity will be assigned the singular descriptive "money" though the general word "assets" is more often used), this is not entirely correct; even though the "capital" within "capitalism" was at one time denoted in such a simplistic manner. The fact remains that "Capitalism" is not a cloned "chip off the old block" as some might want to argue that it is. It is more like a student whose talents have far out-paced the master in their apprenticeship and developed their own separate distinction. Simply put, "Capitalism" is not a simple mirror-imaged echo of the word "Capital". In effect, people do not necessarily want (literally) to make money just for money. They want it because it is a means by which they can engage in other activities. Hence, present forms of Capitalism, though they may alternatively describe a definition of personal (and/or collective) greed, the acquisition of money (like the immediate need of water for a thirsty person), is not the sole orientation. Indeed, like water, money may be accumulated for a potential future thirst or be given/sold to others. If we wanted to emphasize the need for making money to be used in a socially beneficial way, then there would be laws which govern hoarding behavior. If governments and religions actually were preeminently concerned with helping society, each institution would have strict rules governing their own hoarding activities. Because present Capitalistic practices are not fine tuned to ensure a strict "money making" adherence as THE economic system that everyone indulges in, a true model of "Capitalism" does not exist. Capitalism usually refers to an amalgamation of varying economic practices as an adaptive strategy aligned with a generalist approach conducive to survival requirements in a flexibly changing social and global environment.
Previous economic practices did not help those making money to make more money devoid of feeling a sense of responsibility to society. Instead, such presumed Capitalistic-oriented Ebenezer Scrooges used money to invest in the lives of people by engaging in activities which supplied jobs. Building pyramids and cathedrals were not worthless enterprises, and those who spent their money and other resources on such projects are merely a different breed of Capitalist... But many people today want Capitalism to be narrowly defined so as to represent only that which, in their minds, is bad. Religious attitude towards making... and the usage of money, came to support a form of Capitalism which permitted personal greed to be the sole determinant of good, righteousness and and overall virtue... so long as it wore acceptable social garments and used language that could be interpreted as an expression of humility.
Because religious leaders have often shown themselves to be lacking in the very virtue that they once expected others to have, their desire for "alternative definitions of virtue" became a product to be bartered... and manufactured according to one or another situation either involving an individual or a group. Dispensations were so often granted in exchange for something that the word "economy" became attached to the practice; and thus amounted to a type of economic system that many unknowingly refer to as Capitalism, because it has been stripped of its religious vestments and ceremonies. Whatever was presented in an economically viable way could be alternatively interpreted and defined. Making money or acquiring that which could be exchanged for money or directly for a desired commodity (resource), was and remains a vital practice of religious activity.
Dispensation (also called Economy)
In Christian ecclesiastical law, the action of a competent authority in granting relief from the strict application of a law. It may be anticipatory or retrospective.
Economy is the term that is normally employed in the Eastern Orthodox churches for this type of action. The church strives for the salvation of souls, and, when this is more likely to be achieved by a relaxation of a rule rather than by a strict adherence to it, economy permits the relaxation. With typical Orthodox elasticity, no canon defines the limits or use of economy, although certain broad principles are discernible. Thus, to run counter to fundamental dogma is permissible when this is conducive to the greater good of the church and the salvation of souls. Lack of precision is also found with regard to the persons who may exercise economy. All bishops exercise it in their own right and not by delegation; but they should have regard to the views of episcopal synods, which themselves exercise economy, although only after consultation with the bishop of the district within which it is to be exercised. Above both the bishop and the synod is the general council, which has the authority to exercise economy of its own and can reverse the decisions of synods and bishops. Below the bishop is the priest, who exercises economy in day-to-day matters but whose authority is delegated to him by the bishop.
The Western Christian churches have evolved rules with regard to dispensation with far greater precision and, in the Roman Catholic church, in some detail. At first, it was held that only the common good of the church as a whole justified the granting of a dispensation and that only the person or body that made the laws, whether pope, synod, or bishop, could dispense from them. With the development of canon law and the growth of the power of the papacy, however, it came to be accepted that the ultimate dispensing power resided in the pope, though it could be delegated by him to subordinate persons and bodies. The field over which dispensation could operate was significantly widened, for, whereas formerly the divine law and the natural law were outside the scope of the dispensing power, the view was gradually reached that the jurisdiction of the pope, while unable to abrogate the divine or the natural law, could nevertheless dispense from the obligations imposed by them and from their effects in particular cases, though only where the ultimate object of such laws was not thereby thwarted.
Gradually, dispensations were granted solely for the benefit of individuals, regardless of whether or not the whole church could be said to benefit thereby, and the belief that such dispensations were granted too frequently and for financial gain was a factor contributing to the movement that led to the Protestant Reformation. The Council of Trent (1545–63) tried to guard against abuses but left intact the papal authority, and the Roman Catholic system of dispensation today is essentially the same as that which had developed by the end of the Middle Ages. While the authority that has the power to legislate may dispense from its own legislation, so also may its superior; and the subordinate authority's power may be limited by superior authority. The ultimate authority resides in the pope.
In England, the Reformation, which was inspired in part by the pope's refusal to grant Henry VIII an annulment of an earlier dispensation that enabled his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, put an end to the papal authority in this and all other spheres of its previous jurisdiction. The need for a dispensing authority was, however, recognized, and a statute in 1534 preserved the bishops' dispensational powers and conferred upon the archbishop of Canterbury the power of dispensing formerly exercised by the pope, subject in the more important cases to royal confirmation. These provisions, however, have remained largely a dead letter, with the consequent lack of any ordered, practical system of dispensation in the Church of England. The same holds true for the various Protestant churches, none of which has as elaborate a system of laws as the Roman Catholic Church.
Source: "Dispensation." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Hence, today's form of Capitalism is very much due to religious influences. Religious attitudes towards the practice of the social economy called Capitalism has received more and more leniency from those who make a religious institution their home, life's work, or personal observance as an everyday church member. Because the costs for doing the "business of religion" have increased, the rising costs are met with an attitude of rising toleration for activities which help religions to acquire more money. The government subsidy of tax exemption is not enough to put food on the table, so to speak. All too frequently, religions are not satisfied by the donations they receive through tithing payments. They want more so that their "business" can expand to different sectors of society so that they can acquire large market shares. In so doing, they will use whatever business practice is necessary to exploit laws and people in order to make more money with which to make purchases that might help them maintain and grow. Religious attitudes about money greatly affect how social practices of present day Capitalism take form and function.
While the idea of correlating the rise of Capitalism with religion is an old topic, it may be of interest to some readers. For example the work by Max Weber and Richard H. Tawney (sometimes collectively referred to as the Weber-Tawney hypothesis)... as described in the following excerpt may stir an interest for further inquiry:
Richard Henry Tawney
Nov. 30, 1880, Calcutta, India - Jan. 16, 1962, London, England
English economic historian and one of the most influential social critics and reformers of his time. He was also noted for his scholarly contributions to the economic history of England from 1540 to 1640.
In probably his most provocative and influential book, The Acquisitive Society (1920), he held that the acquisitiveness of capitalist society was a morally wrong motivating principle. Acquisitiveness, he said, corrupted both rich and poor. He argued that in capitalist societies work is deprived of its inherent value and thus becomes drudgery, for it is looked at solely as a means to something else.
A few years later Tawney wrote another book that has also become a classic: Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926). It argued that it was the individualism and the ethic of hard work and thrift of Calvinist Protestantism that had fostered industrial organization and an efficient workforce in northern Europe. He thus shifted and extended the emphasis of the earlier work of Max Weber (of whom Tawney considered himself a disciple). Weber had argued that the ideological stage for the rise of capitalism had been prepared by Calvinist religious doctrines, especially predestination.
Source: "Tawney, Richard Henry." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Tawney's interpretation differed somewhat from Max Weber's as is outlined in the following Britannica commentary:
(Protestant Ethic) in sociological theory, (refers to) the value attached to hard work, thrift, and efficiency in one's worldly calling, which, especially in the Calvinist view, were deemed signs of an individual's election, or eternal salvation.
German sociologist Max Weber, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–05), held that the Protestant ethic was an important factor in the economic success of Protestant groups in the early stages of European capitalism; because worldly success could be interpreted as a sign of eternal salvation, it was vigorously pursued. Calvinism's antipathy to the worship of the flesh, its emphasis on the religious duty to make fruitful use of the God-given resources at each individual's disposal, and its orderliness and systemization of ways of life were also regarded by Weber as economically significant aspects of the ethic.
Weber's thesis was criticized by various writers, especially Kurt Samuelsson in Religion and Economic Action (1957). Although English historian R.H. Tawney accepted Weber's thesis, he expanded it in his Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926) by arguing that political and social pressures and the spirit of individualism with its ethic of self-help and frugality were more significant factors in the development of capitalism than was Calvinist theology.
Source: "Protestant ethic." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
It's no wonder some people wanted to trounce Weber's hypothesis because it was interpreted as an attack on Calvinism, and Tawney's views were only slightly better by trying to achieve a discernible description amounting to the behavior of a player in a game of dodge ball. The usage of describing Capitalism as having roots in the behavior of religion-sponsored dispensation may nonetheless also be interpreted negatively by those who prefer to see religion as only a benefit; even though the acts of dispensation clearly reference a type of human behavior that showed its rather Spartan intent because of the superficiality and hollowness used as theatrical makeup and lighting on a social stage of commercialism. In other words, it was extremely difficult for clergy to conceal the practice of a bad form of Capitalism no matter how religiously defined a context of hypocrisy was sanctified. In both cases (Weber and Tawney), the two thesis needed to be interpreted as generalities about the fact that religion and culture can have an impact on economic practices. Too many people made much ado about nothing concerning the essays.
No true form of "Capitalism" actually exists as a large social practice, if we confine the discussion in the framework of a single object such as money. Current economic policies are variations of "Capitalism" in this sense. By narrowing the definition the larger application of Capitalistic practices might be better understood in terms of different bartering programs sharing the same system that one might consider as an alternative interpretation of what is being described from the inside out instead of vice versa... as is often the case with many so-called "objective" analysis. Such an alteration of perspective can be seen in an environment such as a prison, where access to money to be used for barter is practically nullified because an inmate's money is kept on one's "books" that are held by the prison administration, along with the inmate's actual money. Such a situation forces the inmates to establish a different type of bartering system in which personal items that can be purchased in the prison store, can be used as an alternative type of money... to buy protection, sex or even contraband.
Both religious and government attitudes about money need to be addressed if the bad qualities of current Capitalistic practices are to be fashioned into good qualities. Capitalism is not a person that can be blamed for causing the recurrence of social problems. This is just as silly as trying to personify "Evil" into a person whom we could burn at the stake and cause all evil to vanish. We can't get rid of something that does not truly exist as a distinct entity. Likewise, getting rid of money... particularly when billions of people rely on its presence in their lives; would cause chaos. We do not want to create needless instances of chaos. If we do not use money, then we will need some other form of exchange that provides flexibility for all products and services... not to mention the consideration one might have with respect to a desire to develop a new system of production, distribution and consumption. So-called freedom to choose does not necessarily follow with making choices most beneficial... they simply provide the illusion of liberty and that liberty means what is best.
Even if you were to develop an economic system that is better than the one now existing, it might not be accepted by those who presently hoard much of the currency value... because it most likely would be a system that did not let them hoard such quantities. However, if the system you develop advances the provision for widespread equality, the lack of hoarding might well prevent large social projects to take place. Thus, if we were to permit periodic instances of large monetary accumulations, they most likely would have to be specifically outlined and voted on. The present system of taxes would have to change in the face of greater equality, and there would be no business that would have to pay a greater percentage since it would not be permitted to make more than an "equal" share. Yet, this would prevent large corporations from existing... because many of them require large sums of money to operate their basic infrastructures (wages, utilities, insurance, etc...)
If you have a plan to create a better society, you must draw up a blueprint. You can not simply talk about creating one, or say that your interest in creating a better society is itself a blueprint. If you don't like the current system of economics, you must devise one that is better. You can not simply get a bunch of friends to go along with you. It must be subjected to a national, if not international review. However, again... even if your ideas are great, this does not mean those who hold the social power reins will permit the application of such ideas. Inevitably, you may have to use force to attempt an application. Hence, whereas you may be good at developing a plan for using force to overtake a government so as to force everyone to go along with your ideas, you may not be smart enough to develop a viable economic system... nor have the necessary appeal which will bring millions to provide support.
Engaging in ideas that center around blaming (your understanding of) Capitalism as a premise for involving oneself in an inclination of advocating a Revolution is not enough to bring about a better society. Nor is the simplistic belief that a better society will emerge from the ashes of a Revolution. Likewise, expecting the whole world to follow suit in some presumed display of committed humanity displays a lack of human behavior. Engaging in a revolution, such as to overthrow the U.S. government may do nothing more than promote the occasion for another country to exploit the situation and take advantage so that it can take over control of the country's resources. You can not expect to engage in a Revolution and expect the world's governments to sit back and watch the action as if watching a movie with popcorn in hand. They might well use the occasion to instigate their own ulterior motives like the C.I.A. and other countries' government agencies do.
Wanting to conduct a Revolution based on some adolescent notion of economics will not get you many adherents to carry arms, agree with you from armchairs, or engage in alternative forms of support. To attack Capitalism as if it were the major reason for so many recurring social problems does not permit you to see it as a ripple on a much larger array of concentrically occurring ripples that intermesh, have a cadence, and can occur in succession... but can also be disrupted by some object (or person) set in the path. Like the practice of Democracy, Capitalism is a myth set into a given practice... complete with a pantheon of gods, demons and other creatures fashioned in the image of their makers.
As a final comment, it should be said that Capitalism, as a tool, can perform a great function for all of humanity... if it is in the hands of a skilled practitioner with this intent in mind. But, if it remains in the hands of those who collectively act in the bumbling manner of the three stooges that often does more harm than good, salvation will be for those who have something of value to barter with the devil, whose stock of souls make the attempted selling of one's own, of little bargaining power... no matter how much tithing one pays, because the devil gets a cut of the monies collected anyway, just for playing the part of the bad angel, in a centuries old religious theatrical script that supplies a good angel/bad angel dialogue similar to the good cop/bad cop scenes in different movies. The labels attached to both underlying dichotomization and trichotomous events (influenced by incrementally deteriorating environmental events) plays an almost unappreciated role in economic forces; to the point of being a negligible consideration on the ledger of most Economists, as well as vacant from the journals of Sociologists, Political Scientists and Philosophers who are often by the profit gained from the glitter of social rewards they have been led by the culture of the era to expect.
When Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, Socialism and Theology become to be seen as existing on personalized myths collaborated into cultural systems due to an acquired sobriety from unexpected consequences with which a majority wake up with devoid of a hangover that business, government, and religion might take advantage of and reconstitute into yet another illusion; reality will emerge from a slumber to the break of a dawn which will either present us with a new day, or our last.